Actually it does because the routes that allow one to from A to B to C may be able to be comprised of A->D->C or A->B->D->E->C
I can't tell if I'm not explaining it well, or if you are just being dense. Lets try again, with a specific example.
Lets say your home is on Comcast cable for internet. Lets say ALL of comcasts perring links get cut. Everyone on comcast loses their internet. You're internet goes down. Your still getting an ip address from comcast, you can ping other comcast users, but you can't reach anything outside the comcast network. With me so far?
Lets say *I* happen to have both comcast cable and verizon wireless internet. So I still have internet.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to share that link back to comcast and give all those comcast users internet. I simply cannot configure my gear to automagically let comcast know that hey I've still got internet, feel free to route some packets through me; so that suddenly you and all comcasts customers have some internet access again.
If comcast has a million customers, and 100,000 of them have random other connections, dialup, sateliite,ceullar, whatever, they all can get internet access, their really is no practical way for them bring *comcast* back 'online' by somehow 'sharing' those links.
As someone who has done networks, only one side really needs to know about the other
Sort of. Yes, I realized myself after posting that you could use NAT to get around the inability to advertise routes on the 'other side', but to ad-hoc a whole major ISP or whole country of ISPs via multiple consumer NAT points is not practical. For starters the NAT tables would be enormous with millions of hosts behind them and you'd need a lot more than regular consumer gear which again limits who can actually build functional links again.
But sure, yes, with the right hardware, and cooperation from carrier engineers something could be done. This doesn't defeat my argument, it demonstrates how centralized it is.
Its not completely centralized, but its obviously not peer to peer either, nor can it easily become peer to peer in the event the big centrallized links got knocked down.
In fact, if I owned stock in the company, I'd be at the next stockholder's meeting asking some pointed questions about why they're throwing this revenue stream away instead of taking advantage of it.
I'll save you a trip...
"Thank you for your question.
While there is an untapped revenue stream there; there are several associated costs to your proposal; and we are confident we can tap it without these costs.
Maintaining a few larger groups of players is simply more cost effective than maintaining support and systems for more but smaller communities. Before we would open a new property we would need to show that it was substantially different enough that it would attract players not already on our existing properties.
A classic WoW ruleset doesn't meet that criteria. Those players can be served by the existing WoW servers, and we are confident that if we shut down these criminal enterprises that many of the players will return to the existing official servers, requiring virtually no outlay of new resources."
iFixit teardowns are pretty informative; the photo shoot and step by step explanation of the disassembly below is pretty informative and the pictures are great.
Yes there is a video, and no I didn't watch it, but in this case having the video available is an asset. It's just another resource on an already excellent page for someone who wants more. The page is worth visiting even if you don't look at the video, and that's rare.
Then the Azores which you previously claimed are the most Western part of Europe are not, because they're not part of the Eurasian continental plate and sit on the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Capelinhos Volcano, Faial Island, Azores Islands, Portugal (28Â 50â 00â W), is the westernmost point of the Eurasian Plate above sea level.
There are Azores further west, not on the plate, but the western most point of the eurasian plate is still in the Azores.
Furthermore, as the Eurasian plate is as it's namesake implies, shared with Asia, one would have to bundle much of Asia into Europe too, which obviously doesn't make anymore sense than bundling Europe into Asia.
Fair enough; you are right, the eastern edge of "Europe" is fairly poorly defined, and you are also right that conflating Europe and the Eurasion plate isn't productive. But even so, the western edge of Europe as the Western extents of Europe isn't really under much dispute.
I didn't say a thing about *who* did it, just that it could be done - meaning *anyone* could do it
That's a really weird definition of 'anyone' can do it. Most people CANNOT do it, and the people who can do it all belong to very specific organizations. That is pretty much the opposite of 'anyone'.
Further, even if they've got the ability to advertise new routes locally, good luck being able to get whatever entity they are connected to wirelessly to advertise the route. Best case, the small number of people who might be able to get the domestic internet to route packets along adhoc routes still aren't going to be able to get their foreign counterparts to advertise those ad hoc routs, so no packets are coming back.
Again, it's just a matter of *who* is doing it. If the Country wanted to provide the service, they'll find a way to provide the service, even if it's just for government use
Providing individuals internet service really has nothing to do with the internet's ability to route around damage though.
No, you're missing the point.
I'm definitely not missing the point that I am making. I see what you are saying, but you are simply talking about something else entirely.
Lets try this another way.
The internet is like a spiderweb. And every node can communicate with every other along various paths. If I then cut a portion off the web off, then I have two separate webs. That can't communicate with eachother.
You on the other hand are making the argument that it's easy for anyone on the cut off half to throw a line over to the first half and get some service for themselves, and/or some others is absolutely correct. But it still doesn't create a bridge between the two webs again. They might have service but the other web is still cut off.
The number of people who have the ability to actually connect them back together is pretty small. Both sides of the connection have to have the ability advertise routes; and that's pretty rarefied these days.
That was windows 98 era stupid. We have progressed since then.
It seems like you are trying to ssh to a server, should I share the password with everyone in your contacts?
Yes always / Yes right now / Cancel connection
However if you go into Settings -> Advanced -> Personalization -> Sharing -> Extra Settings -> SSH Options there is a check box that says "Disable SSH Passwords" that will add a "No" box to the other dialog box.
There is also a group policy that makes No the default and turns off the prompt.
Except Country A cannot necessarily or even practically prevent Country B from having connections with any other Country (C, D, E, F).
We simply aren't talking about the same thing.
You are trying to deny internet access to individuals in country B. And yes, that is extremely difficult to do.
I am talking about denying internet access to the country at large. And that is relatively easy to do. Because those few individuals near the border with satellites that didn't get bombed, or within cellular coverage range (perhaps via custom antenna configurations) they are JUST getting access for themselves and an extremely small local group. They aren't restoring the "internet" to that country. The internet is still down for pretty much everybody. That is the point I am making, that "the internet *can't* route around this damge".
Individuals being able to get themselves connected as consumer endpoints from inside a particular country is simply not even slightly the same thing as creating a new internet link to that country.
The "Great firewall of china" is completely unrelated.
just means you have someone sitting close to a border with enough cellular modems to make the same kind of service available without having physical links, and it's near impossible to really prevent them or block the RF, etc.
Unless that someone is able to establish a connection to the countries internet infrastructure and advertise the route all he's done is given himself and maybe his little local group internet access. And you are right, that's all but impossible to stop, but I'm talking about actually bringing the country back online (actually having internet access) with these "guerrilla" links and that doesn't work. Its just a few endpoints.
So no, my example is spot on when you look at reality.
As I said, we seem to be talking about achieving different goals.
So Country A blocks Country B; Country B then gets to Country A via Country C, or via C-D-E-F.
You are attacking the wrong problem. Country A doesn't want to block traffic from country B reaching country A. Country A wants to take country B off the internet entirely; and country A is already engaged militarily with B so it has options that include doing stuff IN country B.
So country A physically destroys the big fiber optic bundles at the borders and disables the satellite uplinks of country B by military force.
Country B is now pretty effectively cut off from A, C, D, E, F...
No we don't. The Internet considers censoring as damage and routes around it
Not so much anymore.
Even I had a 100Mbp connections and my neighbor across the border had the same, and we decided to connect them, we'd be able to cross browse, but the internet at large would still be pretty much down because we can't advertise the route.
And even if we could, the amount of traffic that might try to come through might overwhelm and render the link so saturated as to be useless for all but the simplest tasks. (e.g. anything that needed a tcp connection would suffer too much packet loss to work... )
The internet's designed to be reslient to damage in the sense that it can route around it if we want to, with dynamic routing, redundant links, route advertising etc etc but the control over that stuff is mostly pretty centralized now. And most sites are little more than endpoints that couldn't link two parts of he network back together even if they wanted to had the physical resources and connections and cables to do it, they still can't advertise the routes etc. My packets will never find that link.
To completely black out the internet would be hard, after all two guys could even pass packets using smoke signals in theory...but how much bandwidth is that?:) But to take it 99.9% down would be relatively trivial.
They've reached thin enough i think. They could still lose some weight. They could definitely stand to gain some battery life still, especially for more perforamnce oriented units.
And they could still stand to shed a lot of heat. My macbook pro runs pretty cool most of the time web/email/excel/etc, but some crappy web-sites/web-apps manage to be written poorly enough to burn enough cpu cycles to start warming it up if I leave it on the page; and if i launch a game or even stream one a desktop via steam play it heats up fast... even something pretty nomimal for performance like simple sprite turn based games like ToME, or SotS:The Pit, or the graphical version of "DoomRL" get it too hot to have on my lap... I don't expect to a new tripleA game with the latest shiny 3D graphics and have it run cool... but its pretty irritating that DoomRL heats it up.
No, AshleyMadison turned out to be mostly men talking to bots and fake female accounts.
Tinder is at least people interacting with people. I have no idea how many hookups happen, but I'd bet its a lot more than you think, and a LOT more than ever happened on AM.
The steam controller has moved a LOT of games from games i would only play with keyboard and mouse at a desk to games I will also happily play on the couch with a steam controller. Its not so much better at anything (yet) that I literally won't play the game without the steam controller; but it IS so much better at "mouse and keyboard on the couch" that there are now a whole slew of games I can happily play from the couch with the SC. I'd say that's its niche right now.
Games such as CivV, Xcom2, Endless Space, Sword of the Stars:The Pit, Space Hulk, Shadowrun, Fallout, Witcher, etc.
I've also heard its good for non-competitive FPS like Deadspace, Portal2, Bioshock Infnite, Saints Row...where it is supposedly much better than thumbsticks to use pad+gyro to aim. But I haven't tried that yet.
To be fair, the reasoning is more along the lines of 1/2 of the US citenzenry are weak-minded fools, ignorant morons, and rascist twats, and they are eating up Trump's bullshit like its fine dining. To protect these idiots from themselves, and in turn protect ME from what they might do, we need to shut Trump up.
Not saying its the right course of action, but that's the reasoning.
I disagree. They've added the curators, and the explore your queue feature. They've done some work with 2 factor, and completely revamped the marketplace for trading cards etc. They added the refunds.
They did something with GoG I think to enable some sort of cross-chat / cross-play? I think.
As for the "basic functionality" of the store front... I'd say it doesn't need much attention... it works. And it doesn't need a team of "UX monkeys" rewriting the user interface every week.
I honestly wonder where the hell Valve's money goes.
Steam Controller Streaming play from other computers Steambox Streaming spectating from friends Recent VR support
You may not be interested in any of that, I'm not interested in most of it myself, but I'd say Valve has clearly been doing a lot of development work for the platform.
I recently pickedup a steam controller, and have been impressed with it overall. Its not going to replace keyboard and mouse for shooters for me; and its not going to replace my xbox 360 for twinstick games like binding of isaac... but it definitely has a niche where it is best in class. And I'm finding I'm reaching to it more and more to use as my couch-mouse for my HTPC, especially with its most recent updates.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it does because the routes that allow one to from A to B to C may be able to be comprised of A->D->C or A->B->D->E->C
I can't tell if I'm not explaining it well, or if you are just being dense. Lets try again, with a specific example.
Lets say your home is on Comcast cable for internet.
Lets say ALL of comcasts perring links get cut. Everyone on comcast loses their internet. You're internet goes down. Your still getting an ip address from comcast, you can ping other comcast users, but you can't reach anything outside the comcast network. With me so far?
Lets say *I* happen to have both comcast cable and verizon wireless internet. So I still have internet.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to share that link back to comcast and give all those comcast users internet. I simply cannot configure my gear to automagically let comcast know that hey I've still got internet, feel free to route some packets through me; so that suddenly you and all comcasts customers have some internet access again.
If comcast has a million customers, and 100,000 of them have random other connections, dialup, sateliite,ceullar, whatever, they all can get internet access, their really is no practical way for them bring *comcast* back 'online' by somehow 'sharing' those links.
As someone who has done networks, only one side really needs to know about the other
Sort of. Yes, I realized myself after posting that you could use NAT to get around the inability to advertise routes on the 'other side', but to ad-hoc a whole major ISP or whole country of ISPs via multiple consumer NAT points is not practical. For starters the NAT tables would be enormous with millions of hosts behind them and you'd need a lot more than regular consumer gear which again limits who can actually build functional links again.
But sure, yes, with the right hardware, and cooperation from carrier engineers something could be done. This doesn't defeat my argument, it demonstrates how centralized it is.
Its not completely centralized, but its obviously not peer to peer either, nor can it easily become peer to peer in the event the big centrallized links got knocked down.
"Meraki"is that you?
it was a close system for alumns
Which Zuckerberg uploaded himself without permission to get started. Even it's 'origin story' is just a tale of what a piece of shit Zuckerberg is.
blatant, clumsy, and in your face money grabs.
Facebook didn't become that, it started out that way. It was NEVER a good idea.
In fact, if I owned stock in the company, I'd be at the next stockholder's meeting asking some pointed questions about why they're throwing this revenue stream away instead of taking advantage of it.
I'll save you a trip...
"Thank you for your question.
While there is an untapped revenue stream there; there are several associated costs to your proposal; and we are confident we can tap it without these costs.
Maintaining a few larger groups of players is simply more cost effective than maintaining support and systems for more but smaller communities. Before we would open a new property we would need to show that it was substantially different enough that it would attract players not already on our existing properties.
A classic WoW ruleset doesn't meet that criteria. Those players can be served by the existing WoW servers, and we are confident that if we shut down these criminal enterprises that many of the players will return to the existing official servers, requiring virtually no outlay of new resources."
But when the video is showing you **how to do something**, that's invaluable and not easily replaced by text.
The article in question:
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow...
iFixit teardowns are pretty informative; the photo shoot and step by step explanation of the disassembly below is pretty informative and the pictures are great.
Yes there is a video, and no I didn't watch it, but in this case having the video available is an asset. It's just another resource on an already excellent page for someone who wants more. The page is worth visiting even if you don't look at the video, and that's rare.
I don't know what people are bitching about.
Then the Azores which you previously claimed are the most Western part of Europe are not, because they're not part of the Eurasian continental plate and sit on the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Capelinhos Volcano, Faial Island, Azores Islands, Portugal (28Â 50â 00â W), is the westernmost point of the Eurasian Plate above sea level.
There are Azores further west, not on the plate, but the western most point of the eurasian plate is still in the Azores.
Furthermore, as the Eurasian plate is as it's namesake implies, shared with Asia, one would have to bundle much of Asia into Europe too, which obviously doesn't make anymore sense than bundling Europe into Asia.
Fair enough; you are right, the eastern edge of "Europe" is fairly poorly defined, and you are also right that conflating Europe and the Eurasion plate isn't productive. But even so, the western edge of Europe as the Western extents of Europe isn't really under much dispute.
I didn't say a thing about *who* did it, just that it could be done - meaning *anyone* could do it
That's a really weird definition of 'anyone' can do it. Most people CANNOT do it, and the people who can do it all belong to very specific organizations. That is pretty much the opposite of 'anyone'.
Further, even if they've got the ability to advertise new routes locally, good luck being able to get whatever entity they are connected to wirelessly to advertise the route. Best case, the small number of people who might be able to get the domestic internet to route packets along adhoc routes still aren't going to be able to get their foreign counterparts to advertise those ad hoc routs, so no packets are coming back.
Again, it's just a matter of *who* is doing it. If the Country wanted to provide the service, they'll find a way to provide the service, even if it's just for government use
Providing individuals internet service really has nothing to do with the internet's ability to route around damage though.
No, you're missing the point.
I'm definitely not missing the point that I am making.
I see what you are saying, but you are simply talking about something else entirely.
Lets try this another way.
The internet is like a spiderweb. And every node can communicate with every other along various paths. If I then cut a portion off the web off, then I have two separate webs. That can't communicate with eachother.
You on the other hand are making the argument that it's easy for anyone on the cut off half to throw a line over to the first half and get some service for themselves, and/or some others is absolutely correct. But it still doesn't create a bridge between the two webs again. They might have service but the other web is still cut off.
The number of people who have the ability to actually connect them back together is pretty small. Both sides of the connection have to have the ability advertise routes; and that's pretty rarefied these days.
That was windows 98 era stupid. We have progressed since then.
It seems like you are trying to ssh to a server, should I share the password with everyone in your contacts?
Yes always / Yes right now / Cancel connection
However if you go into Settings -> Advanced -> Personalization -> Sharing -> Extra Settings -> SSH Options there is a check box that says "Disable SSH Passwords" that will add a "No" box to the other dialog box.
There is also a group policy that makes No the default and turns off the prompt.
RTFM n00b!
Except Country A cannot necessarily or even practically prevent Country B from having connections with any other Country (C, D, E, F).
We simply aren't talking about the same thing.
You are trying to deny internet access to individuals in country B. And yes, that is extremely difficult to do.
I am talking about denying internet access to the country at large. And that is relatively easy to do. Because those few individuals near the border with satellites that didn't get bombed, or within cellular coverage range (perhaps via custom antenna configurations) they are JUST getting access for themselves and an extremely small local group. They aren't restoring the "internet" to that country. The internet is still down for pretty much everybody. That is the point I am making, that "the internet *can't* route around this damge".
Individuals being able to get themselves connected as consumer endpoints from inside a particular country is simply not even slightly the same thing as creating a new internet link to that country.
The "Great firewall of china" is completely unrelated.
just means you have someone sitting close to a border with enough cellular modems to make the same kind of service available without having physical links, and it's near impossible to really prevent them or block the RF, etc.
Unless that someone is able to establish a connection to the countries internet infrastructure and advertise the route all he's done is given himself and maybe his little local group internet access. And you are right, that's all but impossible to stop, but I'm talking about actually bringing the country back online (actually having internet access) with these "guerrilla" links and that doesn't work. Its just a few endpoints.
So no, my example is spot on when you look at reality.
As I said, we seem to be talking about achieving different goals.
So Country A blocks Country B; Country B then gets to Country A via Country C, or via C-D-E-F.
You are attacking the wrong problem. Country A doesn't want to block traffic from country B reaching country A. Country A wants to take country B off the internet entirely; and country A is already engaged militarily with B so it has options that include doing stuff IN country B.
So country A physically destroys the big fiber optic bundles at the borders and disables the satellite uplinks of country B by military force.
Country B is now pretty effectively cut off from A, C, D, E, F...
No, the extents of Europe refer to physical continental plates; not political extents. A French Island in the Caribbean is not "part of Europe".
No we don't. The Internet considers censoring as damage and routes around it
Not so much anymore.
Even I had a 100Mbp connections and my neighbor across the border had the same, and we decided to connect them, we'd be able to cross browse, but the internet at large would still be pretty much down because we can't advertise the route.
And even if we could, the amount of traffic that might try to come through might overwhelm and render the link so saturated as to be useless for all but the simplest tasks. (e.g. anything that needed a tcp connection would suffer too much packet loss to work... )
The internet's designed to be reslient to damage in the sense that it can route around it if we want to, with dynamic routing, redundant links, route advertising etc etc but the control over that stuff is mostly pretty centralized now. And most sites are little more than endpoints that couldn't link two parts of he network back together even if they wanted to had the physical resources and connections and cables to do it, they still can't advertise the routes etc. My packets will never find that link.
To completely black out the internet would be hard, after all two guys could even pass packets using smoke signals in theory...but how much bandwidth is that? :) But to take it 99.9% down would be relatively trivial.
They've reached thin enough i think. They could still lose some weight. They could definitely stand to gain some battery life still, especially for more perforamnce oriented units.
And they could still stand to shed a lot of heat. My macbook pro runs pretty cool most of the time web/email/excel/etc, but some crappy web-sites/web-apps manage to be written poorly enough to burn enough cpu cycles to start warming it up if I leave it on the page; and if i launch a game or even stream one a desktop via steam play it heats up fast... even something pretty nomimal for performance like simple sprite turn based games like ToME, or SotS:The Pit, or the graphical version of "DoomRL" get it too hot to have on my lap... I don't expect to a new tripleA game with the latest shiny 3D graphics and have it run cool... but its pretty irritating that DoomRL heats it up.
No, AshleyMadison turned out to be mostly men talking to bots and fake female accounts.
Tinder is at least people interacting with people. I have no idea how many hookups happen, but I'd bet its a lot more than you think, and a LOT more than ever happened on AM.
The map you linked is useless.
Two thirds right.
The point identified on the map is the westernmost mainland point; which is in Portugal. Correct.
However, Iceland is not mainland, it is an island; so we are interested in the westernmost point, including islands.
However, even then its not iceland, and westernmost island point of Europe still happens to be in Portugal, in the Azores islands.
QQ
I said it was the reasoning being used. I didn't say I agreed with it.
As for Obama, whatever dude, trump is a basket case in a class of his own. Obama is just another politician.
The steam controller has moved a LOT of games from games i would only play with keyboard and mouse at a desk to games I will also happily play on the couch with a steam controller. Its not so much better at anything (yet) that I literally won't play the game without the steam controller; but it IS so much better at "mouse and keyboard on the couch" that there are now a whole slew of games I can happily play from the couch with the SC. I'd say that's its niche right now.
Games such as CivV, Xcom2, Endless Space, Sword of the Stars:The Pit, Space Hulk, Shadowrun, Fallout, Witcher, etc.
I've also heard its good for non-competitive FPS like Deadspace, Portal2, Bioshock Infnite, Saints Row...where it is supposedly much better than thumbsticks to use pad+gyro to aim. But I haven't tried that yet.
To be fair, the reasoning is more along the lines of 1/2 of the US citenzenry are weak-minded fools, ignorant morons, and rascist twats, and they are eating up Trump's bullshit like its fine dining. To protect these idiots from themselves, and in turn protect ME from what they might do, we need to shut Trump up.
Not saying its the right course of action, but that's the reasoning.
I trust Google more than Microsoft.
I'm not about to defend microsoft... but ~why~ ?
On one device or on any device?
On one account or on all accounts?
I will say their support is insanely hard to reach and tedious to deal with, especially for one off issues that aren't widespread.
I disagree. They've added the curators, and the explore your queue feature. They've done some work with 2 factor, and completely revamped the marketplace for trading cards etc. They added the refunds.
They did something with GoG I think to enable some sort of cross-chat / cross-play? I think.
As for the "basic functionality" of the store front... I'd say it doesn't need much attention... it works. And it doesn't need a team of "UX monkeys" rewriting the user interface every week.
I honestly wonder where the hell Valve's money goes.
Steam Controller
Streaming play from other computers
Steambox
Streaming spectating from friends
Recent VR support
You may not be interested in any of that, I'm not interested in most of it myself, but I'd say Valve has clearly been doing a lot of development work for the platform.
I recently pickedup a steam controller, and have been impressed with it overall. Its not going to replace keyboard and mouse for shooters for me; and its not going to replace my xbox 360 for twinstick games like binding of isaac... but it definitely has a niche where it is best in class. And I'm finding I'm reaching to it more and more to use as my couch-mouse for my HTPC, especially with its most recent updates.
when in reality Microsoft makes you and your information a product which they can capitalize on.
Yeah... but they backported that stuff to 7 and 8 too... so giving you 10 doesn't really move that bar much for them.
And you not upgrading to 10 from 7 or 8 doesn't really solve the information control problem.
So... no. That explanation doesn't really add up.
it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
Which is EXACTLY what he did. His nomination is someone the republicans publically said would be a good pick right up until Obama nominated him.
At this point Obama could nominate Scalia's clone and the Senate STILL wouldn't confirm just because Obama nominated him.